In a February blog post for the Theopolis Institute, Benoît Engel offers a thought-provoking challenge to the widely accepted five-discourse structure of Matthew’s Gospel, proposing a sixth discourse in Matthew 21:28–22:14 to reframe the Gospel’s chiastic center. As someone deeply invested in Matthew’s literary design—explored in my book Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus: Christian Tradition and First-Century Fulfillment—I find his creativity engaging. However, after careful consideration, I remain persuaded that the five-discourse model better reflects Matthew’s intentional structure. In this response, I’ll summarize Engel’s proposal, highlight its strengths, raise some concerns, and defend the five-discourse framework, hoping to contribute to this ongoing conversation about Matthew’s Gospel.

Engel’s Proposal: A Sixth Discourse

Engel questions the widely acknowledged, scholarly view that Matthew’s Gospel is structured around five great discourses (chs. 5–7; 10; 13; 18; 23–25),¹ suggesting that scholars have overlooked a sixth in 21:28–22:14 consisting of three consecutive parables (the two sons, the tenants, and the wedding feast). He argues that adding this discourse shifts the Gospel’s chiastic center from chapter 13 (a discourse) to chapters 14–17 (a narrative), resolving perceived imbalances in the widely acknowledged model. A simplified version of his structure, adapted from his post and presented alongside chapters of the five-discourse model, looks like this:²

In Engel’s model, the sixth discourse (21:28–22:14, simplified as chapters “21b-22a” above) balances the Gospel’s midsection, aligning chapters 14–17 as the literary pivot. Engel sees this as demanded by Matthew’s chiastic design, offering a new lens on the Gospel’s structure.

Strengths of Engel’s Proposal

Engel’s approach has several merits worth noting. First, it addresses a noticeable imbalance in the five-discourse model, where chapters 8–12 are shorter than 14–22, suggesting a more symmetrical center elsewhere. Second, his sixth discourse—three parables with Isaianic motifs (e.g., vineyards, wayward sons)—complements scholarship on Matthew’s typology, such as Peter Leithart’s view that Jesus recapitulates Israel’s history and figures like Isaiah. This typological link is a commendable insight.³ Finally, Engel’s focus on 14–17 as a narrative-center forms a neat chiasm, with pericopes like Jesus’s suffering and resurrection foreshadowed alongside John the Baptizer’s martyrdom,⁴ and Peter’s thoughts carrying him away alongside declarations of Jesus as the Son of God.⁵ While I don’t fully agree with his 12-point chiasm for these chapters,⁶ his observations here are intriguing and invite further reflection.

Reservations About the Six-Discourse Model

Despite these strengths, I have reservations about Engel’s proposal. The first has to do with literary balance issues. Engel aims to correct the imbalance between chapters 8–9 and 19–22 in the five-discourse model, where 8–9 is noticeably shorter (chs. 8-9 are almost half the length of chs. 19-22). However, by designating 21:28–22:14 as a discourse, he pairs 8–9 with 22:23–46 (see 22b of discourse c‘ above), which is half the length of chapters 8–9—creating a new and seemingly identical disparity. In other words, Engel never actually gets rid of noticeable imbalance with a sixth discourse.

Similarly, pairing chapters 13 and 18 as corresponding discourses seems forced. Chapter 13, with its parables, proverbs, and wisdom-sayings for those interested in the kingdom’s secrets, differs thematically and contextually from chapter 18’s focus on apostolic leadership, mission, and warnings to not misuse and abuse the authority Christ gave them. Unlike the clear parallels between chapters 10 and 18 (both addressing apostolic leadership, mission, and division),⁷ 13 and 18 lack shared terminology or intent, suggesting they aren’t natural chiastic partners.

My second reservation is more critical and pertains to a lack of discourse markers and a noticeable literary seam. I don’t think there is a literary seam to be found around 21:28–22:14 (see 21b–22a of discourse d‘ above), especially not one indicating that Matthew intends to identify these sayings as a sixth discourse. Clearly, 21:28–22:14 lacks the hallmarks of Matthew’s five undisputed discourses. Engel notes that he is aware of this. However, each of those (5–7; 10; 13; 18; 23–25) features opening remarks signaling an intentional sermon and crystal-clear closing formula (e.g., “When Jesus had finished these sayings”). In contrast, 21:28–22:14 emerges mid-conversation with the chief priests and elders (21:23ff), flowing naturally from narrative, and ends abruptly with the Pharisees’ reaction (22:15). Without distinct markers, there is no literary seam that shows a clear discourse. Moreover, 21:28–22:14 resembles other parabolic sayings scattered throughout Matthew’s narrative rather than a standalone discourse. For example, if all one has to do is find sayings as lengthy as 21:28–22:14, someone could suggest that 12:22–45 might be a seventh discourse; after all, the speech contained in 12:22–45 is very close to the same length of words as Engel’s suggested sixth discourse.

Defense of the Five-Discourse Model

I find the traditional five-discourse structure more compelling, with chapter 13 as its center and chapters 19–22 as a unified narrative. Chapter 13, the third discourse, sits at the Gospel’s midpoint, flanked by parallel pericopes about Jesus’ family:

• 12:46–50: Jesus identifies his “mother,” “brothers,” and “sisters” as those who do his Father’s will (τοῦ πατρός μου).
• 13:1–52:[The central discourse]
• 13:53–58: His “mother,” “brothers,” and “sisters” reject him in his “father-land” (τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ).

These mirror each other thematically and textually, framing chapter 13 as the pivot. The surrounding narratives (11–12 and 14–16) also align in parallel patterns (not inverted parallel patterns, as chiasms are by definition), such as:

• 11:1–19 / 14:1–12: John the Baptizer’s witness and martyrdom
• 11:20–24 / 14:13–21: Warnings of division vs. acts of compassion (feeding miracles)
• 11:25–30 / 14:22–36: Jesus declared the Son of God and those blind to this truth
• 12:1–8 / 15:1–20: Pharisees accuse Jesus’ disciples of breaking Rabbinic tradition, and Jesus responds
• 12:9–14 / 15:21–28: The Pharisees’ hatred vs. the Canaanite woman’s great faith
• 12:15–21 / 15:29–31: Jesus withdraws; many follow him and he heals them
• 12:22–37 / 15:32–39: Warnings of division vs. acts of compassion (feeding miracles)
• 12:38–45 / 16:1–12: Requests for a sign, answered with Jonah’s example

This symmetry, detailed in my book, reinforces chapter 13’s centrality without requiring a sixth discourse.⁸

Chapters 19–22 form a cohesive narrative unit, bracketed by inclusios like “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (19:19; 22:39) and vineyard parables (20:1–16; 21:33–44). Chapter 19 also begins with scenery that is peculiar to chapter 22, in which we find Pharisees approaching Jesus to test him (19:3; cf. 22:15). They ask Jesus about distinct topics related to marriage with multiple spouses and attaining eternal life, all the while arguing from the Torah along with Jesus (19:3–12, 16–22; cf. 22:23–40). Rhetoric about the “kingdom of heaven” (19:12–23; 22:1–2) and Jerusalem’s looming conflict (20:17–19; 21:33–44) are what weave this narrative section together.

After Jesus is tested by Pharisees, and after he argues with those twisting the Torah, and after he makes claims about the kingdom of heaven—all within chapter 19 and all themes that are mirrored in chapter 22—Matthew presents the reader with a parable from Jesus about a “master of a house” who owns a “vineyard.” Immediately after that parable, Jesus warns his disciples that the “son” of man is about to be killed in Jerusalem (20:1–19). This exact same imagery is mirrored immediately prior to chapter 22 where we find another parable about the “master of a house” who owns a “vineyard.” These are clear literary clues within one lengthy narrative. The mirroring of language and themes is identical. It’s not even remotely vague. In the end of that parable, the tenants of the vineyard want to kill the Master’s “son” (21:33–44) just as Jesus warned back in 20:18–19. (Notice that 21:33–44 is part of a discourse according to Engel.)

By beginning chapter 19 the way chapter 22 ends, Matthew has clearly framed chapter 19 so that it sets the stage for upcoming confrontation in Jerusalem (e.g., chapter 23) among its ruling class. Splitting 21:28–22:14 as a discourse disrupts this flow, undermining Matthew’s clear progression from Galilee (19:1) to Jerusalem before the final discourse (chs. 23–25).⁹

Conclusion: A Continuing Conversation

Engel’s six-discourse proposal sparks valuable reflection on Matthew’s structure and typology and demonstrates remarkable creativity. Yet, I find the five-discourse model—with chapter 13 as its heart and 19–22 as a narrative whole—more consistent with Matthew’s literary cues and intent. Its imbalances, like the brevity of 8–9, seem deliberate, serving the Gospel’s utilitarian design rather than an esoteric chiasm. I’d welcome Engel’s response to these observations, as Matthew’s artistry continues to inspire debate. For now, I leave readers to weigh these perspectives against the text itself, confident that both approaches enrich our understanding of this remarkable Gospel.

______________________________________________________________________________

Jonathan E. Sedlak is a graduate of the Theopolis Institute. He is an independent scholar based in Milwaukee, WI, and the author of Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus: Christian Tradition and First-Century Fulfillment within Matthew 24–25.

---

NOTES

1. Technically, it could be argued that the five discourses are limited to 5:1–7:29, 10:5–42, 13:1–52, 18:1–35, and 23:1–25:46. For the sake of simplicity, I prefer to describe them as chapters 5–7, 10, 13, 18, and 23–25. For a variety of significant theologians interacting with or acknowledging the importance of the five-discourse model, see my book Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus: Christian Tradition and First-Century Fulfillment (Theopolis Books, 2024), 41–56. ↩︎
2. This five-discourse illustration is taken from Peter F. Ellis, Matthew: His Mind and Message (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1985), 12. I have slightly modified his layout for greater clarity. Ellis (p. 14) describes these five great discourses as “artfully balanced both in length and subject matter, with the first (chs 5–7) and the last (chs 23–25) concerned principally with the theme of ‘discipleship’; the second (ch 10) and the fourth (ch 18) with the mission of the Apostles and the use of apostolic authority in the community, and the central discourse (ch 13) with the Church as Kingdom of heaven on earth. Such an arrangement and symmetry can hardly be a matter of chance.” For criticisms of other areas within Ellis’ structural commentary, much of which I agree with, see David R. Bauer, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Study in Literary Design, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Study Series, vol. 31 (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1989), 36–40. ↩︎
3. Although Engel’s identification of Isaianic typology is correct, I think it is mistaken to limit the typology of this section to the figure of Isaiah alone. Technically, the themes he identifies with Isaiah are shared with the prophet Jeremiah, both of whom I treat thematically and typologically in Appendix B of my book. On that see Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus, 423. ↩︎
4. See section “T 14:1–12” and “T’ 17:9–13” in Engel’s chiastic outline. ↩︎
5. See section “V 14:28–33” and “V’ 16:13–28” in Engel’s chiastic outline.
   ↩︎
6. I found multiple sections of Engel’s large chiastic structure to contain unlikely pairs. As can be seen in my defense of the five-discourse model, I find crystal-clear continuity between 14:13–27 (feeding 5000 with five loaves of bread) and 15:32–39 (feeding 4000 with 7 loaves of bread). However, Engel proposes continuity between 14:13–27 and 17:1–8 (the first half of the Transfiguration pericope). There are quite a few more of these oddities I found, but this particular suggestion of his struck me as both unusual and unlikely, especially insofar as intentional pairing on Matthew’s part is imagined.
   ↩︎
7. On that, see Sedlak, Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus, 425–439. ↩︎
8. If one pays close enough attention, it is evident that I have not included Matt. 16:13–17:27 in the parallel literary structure proposed here. Some reasons for that are discussed briefly within my book, Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus, 112–116. Additionally, William G. Thompson’s dissertation should be consulted; see Matthew’s Advice to a Divided Community: Matt. 17.22 – 18.35, Analecta Biblica, no. 44 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970). ↩︎
9. This argument is also presented in my book, Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus, 362–363, n. 54, in response to Brian Carrier’s argument about chapters 21–23 forming one textual unit and chapters 24–25 forming a completely separate textual unit. In my book I present many reasons to believe that chapters 23–25 form one textual unit and intentional discourse. ↩︎